Media Alert: What was Behind Hillary’s Support of the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution?

-

hillary bush.jpg
I did an interview today with National Public Radio Congressional Correspondent David Welna for All Things Considered on what may have been behind Hillary Clinton‘s decision and rationalization to vote for the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution calling for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be designated a terrorist organization.
I also discuss her decision to support Senator Webb’s Resolution, that if passed, would disallow funding for any American military operations against Iran without explicit Congressional approval.
This will be on this afternoon — locally on WAMU 88.5 some time between 4 pm and 6 pm EST — but check the NPR All Things Considered site for local broadcast times.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

5 comments on “Media Alert: What was Behind Hillary’s Support of the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution?

  1. Kathleen says:

    Even if the Webb ammendment did pass, why would Dopey not veto it? And, if the Iranian Revolutionary Guard were to attack our troops on the border of Iraq, wouldn’t that constitute an attack on us, obviating the need for Congressional approval?
    Hillary wants it both ways. She wants to appear tough on “national security” while seeming to be reigning in Busholini. I don’t think it’s going to fly. Recent polls showing her in the lead were taken after her Darth quip but before her Yes vote on the Iran Resolution. She had been making some headway in softening the left’s opposition to her as she moved away from her original position on Iraq, but now, with falling for the same gag again, I think her poll numbers will fall.
    I remember when John Kerry was in the lead until he stood in front of the Grand Canyon and said if he knew then what he knows now, he would vote the same way again.
    The DLC is miscalculating the public’s opposition to this war and any future ones in the ME. They apparently think we have no where else to go. Well, if voters stay home, Democratz will barely have a majority and we will have endless gridlock. Assuming we have any more elections, that is. I’m inclined to think we’ll have us a new war just before November ’08, and some good old fashioned Martial Law, with future elections being suspended for the duration of Busholini’s life. Color me cynical.

    Reply

  2. Carroll says:

    This is from The Forward.
    Cynic that I am this is what I say…
    Hillary is giving “an appearence” of playing to the left on this. She joined Webb so she will have a hand in writting the bill. You can be sure of that. If it doesn’t have 1001 loopholes for attacking Iran she will back out on some excuse and say she tried. This bill won’t amount to much even if it passes.
    Webb should have found someone else because it will much ado about nothing and make him look bad in the end.
    Clinton Steps Away From Pro-Israel Lobby on Measure to Rein in President
    Nathan Guttman | Wed. Oct 10, 2007
    Washington – Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has built a reputation for strictly adhering to the pro-Israel line, but she now appears, for the first time, to be supporting legislation that is opposed by pro-Israel lobbyists.
    Clinton announced last week that she would co-sponsor an amendment, proposed by Virginia Democrat Jim Webb, that would require the president to seek congressional approval before taking military action against Iran.
    “Congressional oversight and debate can help avoid the mistakes and blunders that have afflicted U.S. policy in Iraq,” Senator Clinton said in a statement explaining her decision to co-sponsor the amendment. “We cannot allow recent history to repeat itself.”
    When similar legislation was presented in the House of Representatives earlier this year as part of the Defense Authorization Bill, the Washington press reported that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee was calling on House members to vote against the amendment.
    When it came time to vote, two separate proposals on this issue were shot down by a majority of members, with Republicans voting overwhelmingly against it and Democrats split.
    Clinton is known for her strong record on issues relating to Israel and for her close ties with Jewish and pro-Israel activists. She has appeared several times at Aipac events and has established a reputation for leading the Democratic Party’s hawkish wing on Iran.
    Recently, Clinton voted in favor of an amendment that urges the administration to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terror group. Clinton also signed on to a letter demanding that all Arab countries seeking to participate in an upcoming peace conference recognize Israel and pressure Hamas to do so, as well. Last month, on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, the Clinton campaign circulated a paper detailing the candidate’s support for Israel, both as a First Lady and as a senator.
    Webb first introduced his Iran legislation in March of this year. At the time, it did not receive much attention and was pushed to a backburner. It is being revived, largely as a result of Clinton’s decision to add her name as a co-sponsor of the amendment, making her the only member of the Senate to join Webb’s initiative.
    Both Clinton and Webb stressed that the resolution does not tie the president’s hands in taking action against Iran if needed, but rather ensures that congressional approval is obtained prior to any decision.
    At present, pro-Israel activists are not taking any aggressive position on the Webb amendment in the Senate, mainly because it is still not clear if and when the legislation will be presented.
    Congressional sources said that this week, the legislation might now be reintroduced either as an amendment or as a standalone bill, if the Democratic leadership approves it.
    An official with a major Jewish group said this week that “it is clear that many in the pro-Israel community would like to see this legislation go away” but that the uncertainty over the fate of the amendment allows time for consideration before taking action against the legislation.
    A congressional staffer characterized the pro-Israel lobby stand on the Webb amendment as being “remarkably silent.”
    A source close to the pro-Israel lobby said that no action is being taken and that the lobby has yet to see what comes out of the amendment.
    The source said the lobby is concentrating its efforts on toughening financial sanctions against Iran, though “we do not think any option should be taken off the table.” Referring to Clinton’s co-sponsorship of the bill, the source said that “it is ironic” that a person who might be president supports legislation that could limit presidential authority.
    Jessica Smith, a spokeswoman for Webb, said the renewed interest in the legislation stems from the “increase in aggressive rhetoric on behalf of the Bush administration” regarding Iran. She stressed, however, that the legislation was “very carefully crafted” and that it does not hamstring the president.
    The legislation prohibits the president from using funds approved for the war against Iraq for military action against Iran without first obtaining approval from Congress. It also details certain scenarios in which the president would not need such approval, among them an Iranian attack against the United States or its allies.
    Wed. Oct 10, 2007
    ——————————————————————————–

    Reply

  3. Steve Clemons says:

    Memekiller —
    Very moving, real post — couldn’t agree with you more.
    Steve Clemons

    Reply

  4. Memekiller says:

    Sigh… I could never bring myself to watch that movie Flight 73 or whatever it was. For me, that was the day everything I loved about America turned out to be a charade. Extremists were people who condoned sticking bananas up people’s butts or pre-emptively invading a country that might have evidence they did something wrong we could dig up once we got there.
    Now, this is the popular, mainstream position. To dissent is unserious and out of the mainstream. The ideals that made this country the envy of the world, it is now taken for granted, are the source of our weakness, and the nation that was always slow to war but quick to victory has suddenly found a low tolerance for anyone who would rather plow their fields plunder foreign lands.
    The WTC was the least of our casualties. The cruelest cut was self inflicted, and we’ll all suffer for a long, long time because of it.

    Reply

  5. Kathy K says:

    I heard that AIPAC authored the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.
    Any truth to this?
    If so, she’s just worried about NY. And FL. And also, if so, this is just another example of why she is more of the same-o same-o corporate Democrats.
    Typical Hellery.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *